read_sap_table

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 1000-row cap, the skip-based pagination and that the answer returns next_skip, that keys are always included, that wide tables return large payloads, and what drop_empty does. It does not mention authorization requirements or the cost/latency of wide reads, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and routing advice, then dense parameter guidance with no filler. The telegraphic style ('where: ABAP Open SQL', 'top max 1000') is efficient for an expert but slightly clipped for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still mentions the next_skip field for pagination. For a six-parameter read tool with no annotations, it covers dialect, formats, limits, and pagination – everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the where clause dialect (ABAP Open SQL, not OData), quoting rules, internal date and leading-zero formats with a worked example, the fields comma-list semantics with implicit key inclusion, top's maximum, and skip/drop_empty behavior. Only the 'table' parameter is left implicit, which is self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read rows of any SAP table or DB view') with an SE16 analogy, then explicitly claims primacy as 'FIRST CHOICE for SAP data', which separates it from the many sibling SAP tools. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names both alternatives and the exact conditions that route to them: totals go to aggregate_sap_table, unknown field names go to describe_sap_table. This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance rather than implied usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.